Cases and Topics
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Generally
· Capron v. Van Noorden — centrality of SMJ
· Marbury v. Madison — centrality of SMJ
Diversity Jurisdiction
· Mas v. Perry — complete diversity rule, federal domicile rules
Federal Question Jurisdiction
· Osborn v. Bank of the United States — but-for ingredient test (no longer valid under §1331)
· Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley — well-pleaded complaint rule, Holmes’ cause-of-action test
· T.B. Harms v. Eliscu — rejection of Osborn/ingredient test
· Smith v. Kansas City Title — jurisdiction based on need to interpret meaning/application of federal law
· Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. — no jurisdiction, despite meaning/application
· Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson — current meaning/application test valid if fed. law would allow an independent lawsuit (either expressly or implied, with Cort v. Ash test)
· Cort v. Ash — 4-part test for whether the right to sue is implied in a federal law
· Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the FBI — implied right to sue with regard to violation of rights
Supplemental Jurisdiction
· UMW v. Gibbs — common nucleus of operative fact for pendant claims
· Aldinger v. Howard — presumption in favor of pendent party jurisdiction unless expressly excluded
· Owen Equipment v. Kroger — centrality of complete diversity requirement
· Finley v. United States — flips Aldinger presumption, need express grant of jurisdiction
§1367 overriding Finley, preserving Gibbs, Aldinger, Kroger line
· In Re Abbott Laboratories — supp. jurisdiction over unnamed class members because Rule 23 is not covered by 1367(b)
· Patterson v. Bridgestone — 1367(b) exceptions specify joinder of Ds, not Ps
· Exxon Mobile/Allapattah/Ortega – one claim must satisfy both requirements of §1332, and all the other claims must be diverse in citizenship but all do not have to meet amount in controversy
Removal Jurisdiction
· Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets — removal only by Ds
· Thermtron v. Hermansdorfer — review of remand allowed when review is not for grounds specified in statute
· Carnegie Mellon v. Cohill — remand of state claims allowed after federal claims drop out
Personal Jurisdiction
Generally
· Tickle v. Barton — importance of proper service, PJ is nullified by fraud
· Pennoyer v. Neff — proper PJ is a matter of due process (territorial, or proper q-i-r)
Modern PJ and Long-Arm Statutes
· Int’l Shoe v. Washington — minimum contacts test
· Hess v. Pawloski — constructive consent for service statutes (cars driving through the state territory) valid under 14th Amendment
· Gray v. American Radiator — “stream of commerce,” direction into the state, purposeful availment, forum-specific factors
· McGee v. Int’l Life Insurance Co. — single contact sufficient; systematic/continuous contacts; forum interest
· Hanson v. Denckla — passivity, no purposeful availment not enough for PJ
Specific Jurisdiction
· World-wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson — mere appearance of product in forum not sufficient for PJ
· Keeton v. Hustler — P’s contacts do not matter in establishing PJ
· Burger King v. Rudzewicz — single contract with substantial course of dealings may support PJ
· Asahi v. Superior Court — no purposeful availment; injection into stream of commerce not sufficient; traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
General Jurisdiction
· Perkins v. Benguet Mining — acts of corp. were continuous, pervasive, and systematic; jurisdiction ok even though cause of action didn’t arise in state
· Helicopteros v. Hall — contacts too sporadic/occasional to establish general jurisdiction
Power Over Property
· Harris v. Balk — territorial notion of power over property — effectively overruled by Shaffer
· Shaffer v. Heitner — extends “minimum contacts” test to in rem and quasi in rem actions
Presence
· Burnham v. Superior Court — acceptance of “tag” jurisdiction (although no real majority)
Consent
· Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie — once a party challenges jurisdiction, consents to the court’s power to determine the question of jurisdiction
· M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. — deference to forum-selection clauses (esp. in int’l context)
· Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute — extends deference to domestic, citing economic benefits
Service and Reach of the Federal Courts
· Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. — state’s long arm statute didn’t extent PJ to British corp., led to “Omni provision” to ensure foreign Ds don’t completely escape
· Insurance Co. of North America v. Hellenic Challenger — service on corp. appropriate to anyone reasonably certain to give responsible party notice
Notice
· Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. — notice must be reasonably certain to inform; establishes test of the most efficient/effective way to inform
· Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams — traditional methods acceptable, but must be best notice available
· Greene v. Lindsey — emphasis on presence of other, better means of service
Venue
Generally
· Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Ford — broad due-process leeway for states to develop own venue rules
Federal Venue Rules
· Hoffman v. Blaski — transferee court must be a court where case originally could have been brought
· Ferens v. John Deere Co. — transferee district must apply law of transferor, even when P transfers (extension of Van Dusen rule)
· Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman — transfer of venue may be appropriate even if original court lacks PJ
Forum Non Conveniens
· Piper Aircraft v. Reyno — forum non conveniens applied to foreign Ds, interests of convenience, judicial administration, etc.
Ascertaining the Governing Law
The Erie Doctrine
· Black & White Taxicab v. Brown & Yellow — application of “federal common law” over state common law
· Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins — §1652 (Rules of Decision Act) applies to state common law as well as state statutory law; federal courts must apply all state substantive law
Evolution of Erie
· Guaranty Trust Co. v. York — established outcome-determinative test in deciding when a state law is substantive (here finding that statutes of limitation are substantive state law)
· Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric — modification of York test to allow for legitimate federal policy interests (here the interest in jury trials) to override outcome-determinative rules
· Hanna v. Plumer (I) — refines York test, must look at totality of the rule and its forum-shopping nature
o (II) — when a state rule conflicts with FRCP, federal rule is presumptively valid
· Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. — for FRCP to apply, must be a direct collision with state law
· Gasperini v. Center for Humanities — finds JNOV to be judge-made rule that would cause forum-shopping, thus state rules control (but this is contested, as Rule 59 seems on-point)
· Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh — collision with arguably procedural federal statute statute controls
· Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co — federal courts must apply choice-of-law rules of forum state (as federal rules would be judge-made and would promote forum-shopping)
Joinder and Pleading
Joinder Generally/Federal Rules
· Temple v. Synthes — any joinder permitted under Rule 14 does not fall under Rule 19
Pleading Generally
· Dioguardi v. Durning — pleading only must state the possibility that facts could amount to legal claim for relief (more functional standard, especially with pro se defendants)
· Lodge v. United Aircraft Corp. — general disfavor for 12(e) motions, but balancing need/request for more definite statement with realities of discovery
Complaint and Dismissal on the Pleadings
· Garcia v. Hilton Hotels Int’l, Inc. — answer notice: complaint needn’t be more than necessary for ? to formulate an answer
Answer/Reply
· Ingraham v. United States — 4-part test for whether something is a defense that must be pleaded
· Taylor v. United States — conflict with Ingraham (but courts typically follow Ingraham)
· Gomez v. Toledo — p must only plead statutory elements of a claim in the complaint; matters of avoidance must be pleaded by D
Amendments
· Moore v. Moore — amendment to conform to the pleadings, evidence already present
· Beeck v. Aquaslide — good-faith amendment to contest previously admitted fact, judicial discretion
· Worthington v. Wilson — unknown identity is not mistaken identity under Rule 15
Judgment as a Matter of Law, Jury Instructions, and Appeal
Summary Judgment
· Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. — no reasonable jury could conclude …
· Celotex Corp. v. Catrett — additional evidence not required for the party without the burden of production
· Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. — judges should use evidentiary standard for specific case
Voluntary and Court-Ordered Dismissal
· McCants v. Ford Motor Co. — voluntary dismissal allowed if in good faith (to take advantage of better statute of limitations)
· Messenger v. United States — prejudice to D not necessary in dismissing for failure to prosecute, but it may be considered
· Link v. Wabash R. Co. — dismissal appropriate for failure of attorney to attend pre-trial conference(s)
JNOV, Directed Verdict
· Lavender v. Kurn — scintilla standard for JNOV/DV
· Denman v. Spain — state finding when jury verdict cannot be gr
r last known domicile (Mas v. Perry)
§ Alienage Jurisdiction: An alien admitted as permanent resident is considered citizen of state they live in
§ Citizenship of corporations §1332(c)
· Incorporation (can be all states, makes diversity hard) AND
· Principle place of business (where factories are, where $$ made, ct decides)
**NOTE: Diversity is determined at the time complaint is filed and isn’t affected by subsequent changes in domicile of parties [ie: if they move to same state, ct retains jur]
o Amount in Controversy – $75k
§ Aggregation – adding together the amount in controversy in distinct claims between identical parties to meet requirement – consider one cause of action
§ § 1332 permits aggregation of amount in claims against SAME party
§ CANNOT aggregate amount in controversy for claims to different parties [AàB 50K, AàC 50K is NOT okay]
**NOTE: marriage is an exception
**NOTE: this is confused upon entrance of §1367 and supplemental jurisdiction
§ 1332(b) – if judge is suspicious that claim is really less –may impose costs, must make a good faith assertion of damages
Mas v. Perry
Husband & Wife Mas sue Perry. H citizen of France. H&W lived in LA last as students, doesn’t count as domicile. Perry from LA. Perry says no complete diversity.
BOTTOM LINE: Citizenship for purposes of Div Jur if you don’t have a domicile is last place you were domiciled and intended to remain.
Federal Question – Arising Under Jurisdiction
Article III, § 2: Gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties…”; Art III gives authorization for wide scope as long as they come under federal law, BUT statutory grant is less than constitutionally allowed
28 U.S.C. § 1331
1. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule
2. Federal Cause of Action Test
3. Ingredient/But For Test
4. Meaning and Interpretation Test [Implied CoA Test]
s Historically, why enact?
o To encourage uniformity of interpretation of federal law.
o Federal judges are seen as more qualified/greater expertise.
o Provide for vindication of federal rights unpopular in some states
1. Well Pleaded Complaint Ruleà
Federal question jurisdiction must exist from the CoA itself in sparest form, NOT from anticipated defenses included just in case they aren’t ordered to file a response to the answer
Asks if the P would have to raise the federal issue in a complaint if she had written it in the sparest form, and looks at ONLY those element s.
Louisville & Nashville RR Co. v. Mottley
Non-diverse parties. Mottleys received lifetime RR pass in settlement for negligence claim. Congress passed statute illegalizing these passes. Mottleys sue RR for not renewing passes. Says if RR following statute, then was unconstitutional breach of 5th amendment DP if applied retroactively
CT says constitutional argument is a defense of their CoA
BOTTOM LINE:“Arising under” requires that P’s statement of his own CoA must fall under federal laws, not enough if its only the anticipated defense that arises under. [No Federal Jurisdiction] **Since the case will involve federal issue, can probably use § 1257 to jump to SC in appeals process
2. Cause of Action/Creation Test à
o From Holmes in American Well Works
o VERY limited
o Statutory: ONLY arises under when federal law specifically creates a CoA in the statute
o Constitution: if Federal Law of const gives right to sue
3. “But for” Ingredient Test
o From Marshall in Osborne
Arises unde
